Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The original review was extremely slow. When communicating with the editors, I was told they were having trouble finding qualified reviewers.
Motivation:
Please note: the original journal decision was "reject and resubmit" due to major revisions needed, but I have reported it here as "revise and resubmit". I was pleasantly surprised with the relatively quick turn-around time of the resubmitted manuscript, and surprised that the editor did not send it back out for review. The revisions were fairly substantial changes to the methods, and the addition of one more analysis, but none of it substantially changed the results or conclusions. I am impressed with the communication with the editors, the sponsorship of archiving data in Dryad, and the offer of multiple ways to communicate via Twitter, Facebook, blogposts, etc.
Motivation:
The editorial team were very helpful in the development of the submitted manuscript. However, the process was slow.
Motivation:
While the manuscript was rejected without external review the process was very timely and I would recommend publication within the BJSM.
Motivation:
The editor team is working very fast. The whole process took place very quickly, taking less than three months. The comments of the reviewers were very affirmative and relevant.
Motivation:
This was the very first submission to Frontiers in Oncology from our group and as mentioned in the Journal Description the overall handling, reviewing and decision making process were extremely efficient. As compared to our experiences with previous high end journals. The editor assignment was extremely quick and the whole process from that point onwards was very supportive. We received fair unbiased reviews for our manuscript and while not all comments were useful, the process definitely enhanced the quality of our document. Most of the comments from reviewers addressed the need to include more information pertaining to the observations made in our study. Throughout the entire process we were constantly kept informed of our manuscript status due to a transparent review process. The editor also handled all queries raised by us with minimal delay in the publication process. A slight glitch was presented towards the end of the publication when the editorial office suggested an article transfer following the endorsement of the article by both the reviewers. However, following a response from us they withdrew this request. Amongst all the journals which I have submitted to till date, Frontiers in Oncology definitely stuck to their motto most effectively. I would surely send out future articles in this journal
Motivation:
- The review-process was exceptionally thorough. Very critical and extensive feedback.
- The duration was very reasonable.
Very satisfied!
- The duration was very reasonable.
Very satisfied!
Motivation:
Reviewer advised rejection because this was not "surprising" enough.
Motivation:
Very quick turnaround time. Professional communication. Good review reports.
Motivation:
Reviews were handled appropriately, in our opinion. Editorial decision to reject was explained in detail - thus justified. We felt that we could have addressed the concerns in a chance to review the manuscript, however, these things are always a matter of debate
Motivation:
Straight forward submission process.
Motivation:
Understandable reason was given to transfer the manusscipt to a different journal.
Motivation:
Short time until decision.
Motivation:
Very helpful comments by reviewers who are experts in their fields. Short time for each round.
Motivation:
The second round of reviews was a conditional accept, asking to do very minor changes so it was OK for me to resubmit a second time. Most importantly, the editor decided to accept the paper despite the fact that one of the reviewers still felt skeptical about the article's argument. This is a good sign for me, i.e. the fact that the Editor is willing to bet on an argument even going against of that annoying reviewer who is not satisfied even after you have made the required changes.
Motivation:
We liked the process of publishing at this journal.
Motivation:
The editor decision took quite a long time (3 weeks), which is unfortunate. However, when recieved, the rejection letter was reasoned and informative. Although I (unsurprisingly) do not agree, it does help me prepare the manuscript for the next submission.
Motivation:
Good editorial comments from the reviewers that improved the manuscript. Rapid turnaround. Very streamlined and straightforward R&R process.
Motivation:
The editor and reviewers were excellent. My only frustrations were with the publisher: The typesetters introduced multiple errors (including making some sentences of my paper ungrammatical), which I had to painstakingly find and correct.
Motivation:
The review process was rigor and helpful.
Motivation:
The handling and reviewing process was very helpful.